After last week's stunning political upset in Massachusetts, there is some surprisingly sensible talk on health care reform coming out of Washington, D.C.

The idea of trying to ram something through quickly has been wisely rejected by congressional Demo-crats and the White House.

Instead of hyperbole, reasonable comments are being heard about scaling back health reform and focusing on areas of broad agreement.

It's important that a new, more- limited approach to health care reform not be viewed through a political lens. Republicans would not help themselves if they were to boast about killing health care reform. And, Democrats seemed to quickly grasp the political risks involved in forcing a bill through, even if such an option might have been technically possible.

Instead, President Barack Obama said late last week, "I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on."

And there are significant areas of agreement on health care reform. Few Americans would argue that the current health care system in this country functions well.

There are obvious inequities, and there is no good reason why Americans' spending on health care is, on average, about twice as much on a per-capita basis as the amount spent by citizens of most other advanced nations.

Few people would deny that the three favorites of government critics — waste, fraud and abuse — are found in Medicare and other parts of the health care system in America.

It's unacceptable that people can be bankrupted by a serious illness. It's also wrong for insurance companies to try to find technical reasons to dump customers once they get sick — and there have been reports that insurance companies have hired people to do just that.

Most people see something wrong with denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Finding ways for people to retain their health insurance when they lose their job or change jobs is another area with wide agreement.

There are other areas where people can agree, such as setting a minimum percentage of revenues that health insurance companies can spend on providing health care, rather than on overhead, advertising and multimillion-dollar salaries.

Most people agree that health insurance companies need more competition to bring down prices. If it is not from some form of government insurance program, then it should be from increased competition among private insurance companies, meaning across state lines, most likely within regional areas.

Tort reform is another change that has broad support. Except for a small group of malpractice attorneys, few people deny that frivolous lawsuits, and the threat of lawsuits that leads to the practice of defensive medicine, add to the health care costs of everyone.

It also might be possible to find agreement on expanding the Medi-caid rolls to help people on the lower end of the earnings scale. There also should be agreement for targeted programs that ensure that all children have health insurance.

There also might be support for lowering the eligibility age for Medicare for certain groups of people. But additions to Medicare only exacerbate the already significant cost issues threatening the program.

Throughout last year's long health care debate, proponents of reform promised billions of dollars of Medicare savings. If those savings can be found, they should be found quickly — before any major expansion of Medicare.

With the exception of those members of Congress getting large campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry, there probably is broad agreement questioning why Americans must pay more for drugs than citizens of most other advanced countries.

The health care bills that had been moving through Congress had grown so large, with 2,500 pages or more, that many Americans had become suspicious about all the details buried inside. And the secret deals that the White House struck with the health insurers, drug makers, doctors groups and hospital groups made many people suspicious, even if those deals were based on realistic political calculations.

America needs health care reform, for both moral and financial reasons. Obama is right to focus on a scaled-back reform measure. He also is right to bring renewed attention to bringing down costs. For the past year or more, expanding coverage received much more attantion than efforts to bring down costs.

Cost control must now be a higher priority.

Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts will allow the president and Republicans, as well as Democrats in Congress, to come together for a fresh start. There should be no talk of giving up on health care reform. Rather, there now is an opportunity for a new start, one that will have broad support in Congress and across the country.